Author
Topic: 7D - How bad is it? Really? (Read 16854 times)

Great pics. Shows how much of a fantastic camera it is in the right hands.

Thats correct as the 7D is in a price gap that is very affordable compared to the FF equivalent but is aimed toward more advanced/pro shooters and the attitude amateurs have toward glass. Therefore many marry the camera with poor glass. Just because it is EF-s putting the cheap inexpensive glass on it will be detrimental. But many think cameras are more important, especially some that aren't photo buffs but like having the best.

This was always my qualm with Canon and its 18mp sensor as all the recent XXXDs and 60D have it too. Unless quality glass is used to resolve that pixel density then yes the camera wont perform well in terms of IQ. Give it high end lenses and the camera sings, but then it does have its drawbacks. There is always a compromise, add more IQ and it creates a slower camera at a higher price point. The 7D hits the spot pretty well, as long as you are willing to hunt for the light and spend some time editing the RAW files in post.

I enjoyed the 7D but it wasn't quite what I wanted and needed for my work, although I wish I had kept it and used it with my 5DMKIII.

In all honesty I almost did not buy it. Don't get me wrong because I do appreciate the resolution for cropping, etc but I think if Canon had kept it at 15 megapickles coupled with the new sensor tech no other manufacturer could have beaten at that time. Stall a bad a$$ today and would have been even more at it's release.

I had all the 5D series and have the 5D3 as well. Both bodies have their places and uses.

canon rumors FORUM

Almost forgot OP ... if you haven't done so yet; head over to 500px.com and register. Then in the search just type in 7D. That should give you an idea of what can be captured with that camera. I think you'll like.

No offence to Pardus, this excellent image shows the detail and saturation possible even at high iso's with a 7D, I would say that set up for RAW and with the slightest of post-processing a lot of the background noise (unobtrusive in this JPEG, but there in the shadows) could be easily removed.

I think, as this and the earlier images posted show, any fears of poor image quality are largely ill founded.

The latest cameras in the best of hands are better, but for the money, in fact at any price, the 7D can be a formiddable sports camera.

I would augment my earlier comments by saying that good glass is important (what lenses do you have just now? the 85 f1.8 and 100mm f2 make brilliant short sports lenses on the 7D) and camera set up is important (tweak the AF, shoot RAW)

I have to agree. I bought a 7D as my first dSLR having not shot in years, and back then it was film.My post skills were, and still, are not the best, so I kept thinking the shots were not that great and very noisy. Lo and behold, I had become a pixel peeper, and did not even know it.

Anyway what Paul said is great advice. Spend a bit of time to get the RAW work flow down. You will need to eventually anyways. Had I figured some things out sooner I would probably still have the 7D and not done the full frame upgrade which I can't say I regret a lot but, it's only money.

As others suggested, look up photos of what the 7D can do and you will see it can do a whole lot!

No offence to Pardus, this excellent image shows the detail and saturation possible even at high iso's with a 7D, I would say that set up for RAW and with the slightest of post-processing a lot of the background noise (unobtrusive in this JPEG, but there in the shadows) could be easily removed.

no worries, that was just a random shot from a tournament a couple years ago. nothing special but thought it would be a good example of real world expected results with jpg, unedited and no noise reduction. I shoot raw for things that matter but shooting for fun at a 6 game tournament, way too much time to deal with 3000 thousand raw files

I am thinking of upgrading to the current 7D (yes, tired of waiting for the new one) from a 30D, who have served me well. My limitations are in the high ISO areas, as 30D has a max of 1600 (which is BARELY usable for web). I usually try to keep it at 1000 or lower.

I do take pictures of indoor sports, so that is the reason for the upgrade. I also have an EF-S setup, so FF, though it would be awesome, is out of the question (and budget) for me atm.

I have seen the 7D getting bashed for bad high-ISO performance here, but I also realize that the standards on this forum is VERY high. Since I am not a professional, and probably never going to sell any of these pictures, my view of what is acceptable is somewhat lower.

That said, I do not want to invest a large sum of money into a camera that has bad IQ over ISO 1000, as I already own one of those...

So, the question is: How bad is the 7D on high ISO (1000-6400)? Really?

I had 30D and I used it EXACTLY the SAME way you do, so our tolerance for noise is probably similar, my experience may be similar.

I played for couple of day with t4i which is the same as 7D in terms of noise, and I couldn't quite like ISO 3200. It was probably like ISO1600 on 30D. In the meantime, I had 5D Mark II and used up to 6400 (maybe like ISO800 on 30D), and now 5D Mark III at ISO 10000-12800 is equivalent.

This is all JPEG, no noise manipulation. When cleaning noise, you get a bit better results, but then it depends on the picture, it may soften unacceptably. I returned T4i, and will not look at current crop of crop sensors until next generation.

So yeah, 7D will buy you marginally better ISO, probably 1 stop, and then Mark III at least another 2 on top of it...

Look at some of the images posted earlier in this thread...the iso noise is deplorable, well hidden with the web file sizes. Zoom in and check the clarity. Unless you have perfect light, the 7d is likely to give you a headache.

Pixel peepers should stay away from this body. I found it totally unacceptable for portrait work, unless you 'really work hard' to get the best light possible. Going from a xsi- known for its pixel level sharpness - to a 7d, the difference was like WTF?

Downsized, cleaned up images are not a way to show what images come out of the camera. I feel like its disingenuous. My goal is for hardware to produce the most incredible images possible. The 7d creates mush-tastic images. Also, the 7d's atrocious iso 100 noise is nothing like ive seen on any other canon camera. Not to kick the horse, but the sensor can also exhibit mosquito noise, which according to canon is not proper. my 7d came down with it twice.

The t2i version of this 18mp sensor kills the 7d version in terms of sharpness AND especially noise. And hopefully you dont run into the 7d's Af issues like i did...canon was never able to fix mine after 4 tries, and i had to take a big loss on that body.

get a t4i and enjoy it while you save up for a full frame, i would say.

The more info the better. I dont even bother listening to photogs when they say they are not pixel peepers.

no worries, that was just a random shot from a tournament a couple years ago. nothing special but thought it would be a good example of real world expected results with jpg, unedited and no noise reduction. I shoot raw for things that matter but shooting for fun at a 6 game tournament, way too much time to deal with 3000 thousand raw files

Wow! 3 million shots?

Lets see - superfast post (10 seconds per image), no sleep 24hrs/7days, - nearly a year to process.